Cortes v. Corned Beef Express, LLC
- Rearden
- 1:20-cv-03546
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cortes v. Corned Beef Express, Judge Rearden declined to consider plaintiffs’ default-judgment application and ordered a corrected motion if they continued seeking judgment.
The plaintiffs’ default-judgment application was not considered. The plaintiffs were required to file a corrected motion by April 10, 2024, if they continued seeking default judgment, and to serve the defendants with the order. The case was not dismissed by this order.
What happened
In Cortes v. Corned Beef Express, LLC, the plaintiffs asked the court to enter a default judgment and submitted supporting materials.
The court found that those materials did not show that the defendants were legally responsible based on the facts alleged in the complaint. It therefore said it would not consider the application and directed the clerk to terminate the plaintiffs’ motion.
Judge Rearden ordered the plaintiffs to file a corrected default-judgment motion by April 10, 2024, if they wished to continue. The plaintiffs also had to serve the defendants with the order within two business days and file proof of service; the order warned that an untimely or improper motion may result in dismissal without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Cortes v. Corned Beef Express, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-03546
- Rearden
- Mar. 27, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs moved for a default judgment and filed a declaration and proposed judgment in support. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
Ruling
The court stated that the plaintiffs’ submissions failed to establish that the defendants “were liable as a matter of law.” The court explained that a default judgment may be entered when the complaint’s factual allegations, taken as true, establish liability as a matter of law, and that the plaintiffs’ submission had to analyze why the pleaded facts supported liability. Because the submissions did not do so, the court said it would not consider the application.
The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 74, the plaintiffs’ motion. The court did not enter a default judgment in this order.
Required Next Steps
If the plaintiffs planned to continue seeking a default judgment, the court required them to file a corrected motion by April 10, 2024, in accordance with the court’s individual rules and practices. The plaintiffs also had to serve the defendants with a copy of the order by overnight courier within two business days and file proof of service on the docket. The court warned that failure to submit a timely and proper motion may result in dismissal without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.